Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Budd, are you familiar with the concept of signal and noise? The "ignore it and move on" approach works in some circumstances, not in others. A forum ceases to be useful for its intended purpose when the signal -- the posts and comments that are on the topic of the forum -- are drowned out by an incessant high volume of posts and comments on another topic, any other topic. If I go to a physics forum and start posting about grilled cheese sandwiches (because after all, don't the laws of physics apply to grilled cheese sandwiches?), and for every post on a real physics topic I post one or two grilled cheese posts, it's a bit disingenuous to say that the solution is for the people who want to discuss physics to "just ignore it".

Hi Mary,

I guess I have to agree with Dan on this item, too, in that I find the IS subject to be foundational to the discussion around ki, aiki, and aikido. And the debate seems to be ongoing from people now within aikido regarding its merit (I don't count myself among them, at present)

Regarding signal to noise. I think your analogy of physics and grilled cheese is a bit inaccurate. If I were on a physics forum and I spent a lot of time being interested in the subject of force * mass . . which I'd regard as foundational to the idea of physics - but then others said to me that their type of physics does that already, or another faction said I didn't need to worry about force * mass . . I might get a bit tetchy then, too. Does that make sense?

In terms of people contributing useful information rather than debating personalities, I think that's a valid argument from the signal to noise perspective, but that's all I'll say about it. I don't participate and try to keep my own contributions/interests to the IS how-to's. If someone doesn't care, I don't mind, I don't need to evangelize. If someone does seem to care, but doesn't have experience or an educated viewpoint, I try to give them ideas to get some.

Either way, I'm good with live and let live, I just think there's enough of a legitimate debate within aikido about this, that on one hand it's interesting to watch - on the other, it's still fun to participate in the discussion.

And thus brings the debate to its head, Mary.
Seriously and kindly, I suggested that only Jun can solve it, because our very real debate IS... one of pertinence, IS...one of relevance. Your opening comment regarding "signal to noise" in itself suggests a lack of relevance; noise as opposed to good signal.

Dan, I'd have a much easier time accepting the relevance of IS, if you ever approached any aikido topic as aikido, and didn't always try to turn it into a discussion about IS. I understand the limitations of the signal vs. noise analogy, in that it can be seen as too rigidly dualistic -- but to you, it's all IS and that's all we should be talking about. There are no boundaries, nothing's off limits to be turned into an IS discussion/proselytization, and to be honest, it seems to me that you don't have any genuine interest in aikido per se -- only as a vehicle to promote your views on IS. If I want to read IS discussions, I'll go find an IS website. Is IS relevant to aikido? Maybe, but how can I tell when you're constantly clubbing me over the head with it? You are forcibly dragging the horses to water, and constantly berating and mocking them as willfully ignorant when they don't want to go at your pace, or not at all right now, thank you very much. Well, we've all got a few truths that we think we've got a handle on, and we're not all wrong in the head just because we don't want to march in the IS parade. As for signal vs. noise? To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Noisy is as noisy does."

Dan, I'd have a much easier time accepting the relevance of IS, if you ever approached any aikido topic as aikido, and didn't always try to turn it into a discussion about IS. I understand the limitations of the signal vs. noise analogy, in that it can be seen as too rigidly dualistic -- but to you, it's all IS and that's all we should be talking about. There are no boundaries, nothing's off limits to be turned into an IS discussion/proselytization, and to be honest, it seems to me that you don't have any genuine interest in aikido per se -- only as a vehicle to promote your views on IS. If I want to read IS discussions, I'll go find an IS website. Is IS relevant to aikido?

Hi Mary:

Well, to be honest, it appears to me that IS was such a big deal that it pretty much dominates Asian martial-arts discussions. Qi/ki/prana. Dantien/Hara. Jin/Kokyu/Shakti. Blending with an opponent and "becoming One" with him (Or blending your forces/ki with all things around you and "becoming One with the Universe"). Concentrating the qi/ki at the dantien/hara. Putting the mind in the dantien/hara (sinking the qi). Breathing exercises to develop the body. And so on. I.e., the point is that it is supposed to be an overwhelming criterion and if you understand that, a lot of O-Sensei's writings begin to make sense, as does Ikeda's, Saotome's, Tohei', Shioda's, etc., etc., fixation on ki in the training and techniques of Aikido. Is it different from what you call 'Aikido'? Probably. And aye, that's the rub.

Dan, I'd have a much easier time accepting the relevance of IS, if you ever approached any aikido topic as aikido, and didn't always try to turn it into a discussion about IS. I understand the limitations of the signal vs. noise analogy, in that it can be seen as too rigidly dualistic -- but to you, it's all IS and that's all we should be talking about. There are no boundaries, nothing's off limits to be turned into an IS discussion/proselytization, and to be honest, it seems to me that you don't have any genuine interest in aikido per se -- only as a vehicle to promote your views on IS. If I want to read IS discussions, I'll go find an IS website. Is IS relevant to aikido? Maybe, but how can I tell when you're constantly clubbing me over the head with it? You are forcibly dragging the horses to water, and constantly berating and mocking them as willfully ignorant when they don't want to go at your pace, or not at all right now, thank you very much. Well, we've all got a few truths that we think we've got a handle on, and we're not all wrong in the head just because we don't want to march in the IS parade. As for signal vs. noise? To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Noisy is as noisy does."

Mary,

As Dan, Mike, Budd, and others have already mentioned, IS is integral to Aikido and any conversation about Aikido can very easily lead to a comment about IS. If someone is talking about how to do a certain technique and someone jumps in with the IS perspective on it, that is a valid input. If you disagree and consider that as noise, so be it - ignore it and move on.

Perhap where the line to draw in the discussions is keeping the NAMT forum to discuss internal strength as it's own thing in terms of how it works, how it's exhibited in other martial arts, sparring, fighting, etc. How it's developed automatically in more limited forms through some types of activity (i.e. the notion that Weightlifters have strong "ki", but it's more limited in functional use and doesn't give the same longterm benefits to wellness, martial capability etc. that more fleshed out appoach to IS might). Even vetting out some of the definitions that different groups pursuing it might have, the historical contexts that support them, etc.

That way, the folks that do believe their practice already incorporates IS can contribute in NAMT to the degree in which their understanding allows, while also getting some martial art agnostic views into the discipline of internal strength building. My only point would be if you're going to say "we already do that" just prepare to have a clinical discussion around the methods you're using and expect some feedback and even disagreements. My challenge to us all (myself included, of course) is to allow for some spirited debate while keeping things respectful and on subject.

Then for aikido specific parts of aikiweb, the subject of internal strength can/even should be addressed, but specifically within how it's has been, currently is and maybe even should be trained in aikido as practiced before, today and going forward. One issue as I see it is that many infrastructures within the model of practice are so based on hierarchies and protocols that place the "sensei" on a pedestal of unquestioned correctness - that actual debate may be difficult or at the very least more challenging.

That said, I think enough people inside and outside the structure of the art are getting together to learn and try things out, the momentum - at least as viewed by this outsider on the aikiweb side of things, seems to be building to be more inclusive as more folks get hands on and feet in the doorway. It is interesting to watch but I'm hopeful that the trend in the discussions keeps moving forward to content without being focused on personalities.

Aikido has gone in a lot of directions and I'm the first to say I have zero problem with that. Some groups focused on certain things, others on others. Evolution happens and will continue to happen. There are guys out there doing things I'd never do, but hey, if it works for them more power to them.

So I think it is understandable that *some* will circle back and try to recover what *they* think may have been lost (or maybe better yet overlooked) during the changes of evolving. Others will see little or no value in that and again, I have no problem with that. Arts evolve and Aikido certainly went in a whole lot of directions for a myriad of reasons well beyond the scope of this discussion. The differences will continue to grow. Of course the question of "what is aikido" will still remain, but honestly I think it is unanswerable given the multiple levels upon which the question can be asked. Meaning unless we all agree to a whole lot of ground rules and defining contexts we're just going to keep right on talking past each other.

So all that said, "Aiki" as a concept and practice wasn't an invention of O-Sensei. Other arts have it to varying degrees as well. I think the IS component of Aikido varies tremendously today within various groups. Of course even the idea of what it is (or should be) vary tremendously. But in the end how things *should* be is a value statement that I'm really not interested in debating personally. I can answer it for myself but I'll leave everyone else to their own conclusions. So given the variety of practice that now falls under the general rubric of Aikido I see little reason to debate these things.

As such a forum dedicated to IS (or just NAMT) is just fine with me. It can be discussed outside the context of Aikido on its own terms. That's cool. Those who find the discussions silly or "we already do that" or "it isn't relevant to us" are perfectly right to ignore the discussion. And that is probably easier in a separate forum they can ignore all together. Those who want to read but not participate, great, I have zero problem with that as well.

WRT to signal to noise. That analogy assumes we agree as to what is signal and what is noise. Personally I find the topic of IS to be signal. While others see it as nothing but nails on a chalkboard.

1. My only point would be if you're going to say "we already do that" just prepare to have a clinical discussion around the methods you're using and expect some feedback and even disagreements. My challenge to us all (myself included, of course) is to allow for some spirited debate while keeping things respectful and on subject.
2. One issue as I see it is that many infrastructures within the model of practice are so based on hierarchies and protocols that place the "sensei" on a pedestal of unquestioned correctness - that actual debate may be difficult or at the very least more challenging.

Hi Bud
Just some thoughts on what these discussions sometimes looks like.

Statement one:
A clinical discussion by definition: extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical:
I have seen the nature of these clinical discussions. Who is providing analysis...based on what experience, who is the teachers/authority/ source to define correct or incorrect?
This of course leads to
Statement two:
Seems to me that FAVORABLE terms such as "authorities" "Big Dogs" "real experts" and other phrases are part of the vernacular used for teachers approved of in these "so called" clinical discussions.
"Senseis placed on pedestals" "you're the expert you tell me" and other times providing ill disguised contempt for established teachers efforts are shots across the bow, some seriously ugly and are reserved for aikiweb members and teachers that a group of amateurs with barely any experience don't approve of...and all based on what?
To use your own terminology- who's unquestioned correctness or supposed expertise?
Just how does that kind of behavior and commentary fit ...into a dispassionate clinical discussion?
It doesn't
Which is most of the reason real discussion will never happen here anymore. I would guess, ever.
Having some measure of respect for the people we are supposed to be interested in sharing with goes a long way...and that has nothing to do with the subject itself. I agree with Keith, that many may not care at all either way, but others that might be interested in exploring this may see the message, killed by the messenger. We need to ask ourselves: Just how much "signal" are we really delivering

I again vote for NAMT as it is. Real discussion about IP/aiki isn't going to happen here anymore.
Related discussion of how it fits into arts will appear here and there; if it is aikido related it will be above, non aikido related it will be in NAMT.
There is simply no need for any change.
Dan

Really great points have already been made -- I'm thinking about action and behavioral change now. The NAMT forum is great for what it is, and what I am looking forward to is real aikido discussion in the general forums slowly changing.

Those of us who are aikidoka and see IS as part of (or the core of) our art need to learn how to talk about it firmly within the context of aikido. Of course non-aikidoka would feel welcome to join in.
Yes, we benefitted from the NAMT forum, and threads on CIMA and Daito Ryu for a while, as we started to understand and synthesize things, but now it is time to graduate and talk about aikido.

We have to learn to talk in a way that doesn't completely alienate others, and other aikidoka should be able to hear from IS people without getting upset -- WITHIN aikido-focused threads.

For decades, if a beginner says "I'm having trouble doing it right," people have said "welcome, be sure to use your center, extend ki," that kind of thing. People may have been unsure of how to interpret that, but they didn't get upset and accuse the seniors of polluting aikido with internal strength terminology.

IS terminology is congruent with aikido terminology to the degree that IS is involved in the nature of aikido. We aren't trying to start new conversations, we just want to go a bit beyond "use your center" or "extend ki." Surely no aikidoka would protest that?

I would frame this discussion in a larger perspective in that this "debate" has been going on for a very long time. I am re-reading (multiple reads) again the Aikido Journal's book of the interviews of the early deshi of O'Sensei. Some common threads are: 1) Today's Aikido is seriously missing some things and resembles dancing to some; 2) The various deshi had their own unique "take" on directions which were acknowledged as separate but related paths; 3) O'Sensei took a foundation based in Daito Ryu and made significant modifications to it. Even with those modifications, he was considered as a one of the top martial artists around during that time period; 4) O'Sensei did NOT explicitly teach how do do various things. He appeared to be aware of how each student "translated" what he did into how they did their techniques; 5) O'Sensei's teachings appeared to center around principles of movements and philosophical/religious ideas (as opposed to teaching techniques).

A number of us are struggling to try and emulate or even surpass (hopefully) our teachers. They obviously figured some things out that we are still apparently clueless about (relatively speaking). Our teachers did not limit themselves to a single-source learning model. I think that it is safe to say that our teachers also recognized the limits of the teaching model that they were exposed to and they to sought to address that is some manner, shape or form.

People who have directly experienced the IP/IT models that are out there, almost to a person, have spoken (in public and private) about how important these models have become to the raising of the level of his/her Aikido. Helping to facilitate this process and encourage it will always be difficult for some of the following reasons: 1) the strong personalities amongst the people out there teaching this stuff leads to strong personal likes and dislikes; 2) the material involves a genuine "rewiring" and "reprogramming" of how we operate. The deeper you go into this, the more complex it becomes, so that it will be easy for people to find convenient stopping points and say that they have arrived; 3) The amount of people out there who have NOT directly experienced this stuff are obviously threatened by this material and respond by saying that they already know it, it's really something else, it won't work........ as a means of protecting what they think that they know (what about the prince and clothing....).

The issue of noise to signal ratio is not all that helpful, because what one person might interpret as noise, another can tease out important signals that lead to genuine, positive change.

Budd's suggestions are sound. I also can appreciate Dan's position of looking at the overall history and looking to see how things usually end up (or down for that matter).

I am thankful for all of the on-line and personal experiences that I have had (not all have been positive). These discussions challenged my thinking and I sought out to experience what I was hearing about. That has forever changed the direction that I am heading in (not that it might not turn to another direction as some point in the future). I have learned to tune out a lot of the nonsense and I am trying harder to learn more so that maybe one day, I might be able to pass on some of this knowledge to another generation of dedicated students. Right now, I do not believe that I understand enough to make much of a useful impact upon these discussions, other than to say the following: 1) If you have not directly experienced some of these models/teachers, you should do so; 2) If you have not directly experienced some of these models/teachers, you add nothing to these discussions by assuming knowledge based on a genuine lack of direct experience and understanding; 3) If you are learning from one of these teachers, be as open as you can to encourage and allow others to experience the process that you are engaged in; 4) If you are teaching one of these models, then abide by the following rule with the other teachers-> If you do not have anything nice to say, keep those opinions private. Partisan wars diminish from the wealth of what is out there. The educated consumer is your best customer. Allow this process to occur.

A number of us are struggling to try and emulate or even surpass (hopefully) our teachers.

Hi Marc -

I'm curious; how will you know if and when you have managed to "surpass" Imaizumi Sensei? By what yardstick will you measure a comparison? I'm pretty sure that if I got on the mat with Maruyama Sensei today he would still have no trouble handling me, and I've come a long way in the 10 years since I last saw him. He always said that his goal was continued growth; do you think that your teacher also continues to grow in his Aikido? I would be very surprised to find it otherwise.

I train directly under Imaizumi Sensei every week since 1989. I have personally experienced his own development and my own. I tend to be brutally honest in my assessment of myself. I know full well how far I have to go. He would be the first one (certainly before I would) to acknowledge if my skill level equaled or surpassed his. I do not believe that I am close yet. He keeps getting better and so do I. The race has always been on. No egos are won or lost in this race. We both desire to be the best that we can be and to help our students be the best that they can be. One of my sayings (yes, I created it) is: "Reality is the ultimate trump card". If I get there, it will be obvious to those people who know both of us. The destination is not what matters, but the journey.

Hi Bud
Just some thoughts on what these discussions sometimes looks like.

Statement one:
A clinical discussion by definition: extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical:
I have seen the nature of these clinical discussions. Who is providing analysis...based on what experience, who is the teachers/authority/ source to define correct or incorrect?

Well, I think it's going to be case by case. If people choose to be transparent regarding where they've gotten their info, then cool, people can choose whether or not o factor that into the weight somebody gives their theories and discussion contributions. I don't think I am looking for anyone to define correct or incorrect on a discussion board. Others can choose to if they wish but it ain't my bag. My thinking is that it's a combination of one's ability to do what they say they can do, along with their "authority" based on methods either developed or learned from self-exploration and exposures to a legitimate system/lineage/teacher. Others may have laxer or more stringent criteria, but for my money it's not something you solve in online interactions.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

This of course leads to
Statement two:
Seems to me that FAVORABLE terms such as "authorities" "Big Dogs" "real experts" and other phrases are part of the vernacular used for teachers approved of in these "so called" clinical discussions.
"Senseis placed on pedestals" "you're the expert you tell me" and other times providing ill disguised contempt for established teachers efforts are shots across the bow, some seriously ugly and are reserved for aikiweb members and teachers that a group of amateurs with barely any experience don't approve of...and all based on what?

I'm not in a position nor disposition to argue that with you - people will be and contribute what they will, judge them as you like, take it or leave it if it's useful or not. There's too much "pack mentality" going on at work over what should be an academic discussion in forums like these. What I will say is that amongst a group, if there's going to be agreed upon terms, there should be consensus around what the terms mean. But I think in a setting like NAMT, where the aim is bringing to the table what a term means in your approach (the collective "your"), there should be room for broader definitions and terms.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

To use your own terminology- who's unquestioned correctness or supposed expertise?
Just how does that kind of behavior and commentary fit ...into a dispassionate clinical discussion?
It doesn't
Which is most of the reason real discussion will never happen here anymore. I would guess, ever.

I'm not interested in saying that person X or Y is the real authority. I expect people to make their own individual judgements based on experience, etc. I don't think a discussion around the academics and "how-to's" needs to have an associated pecking order. If you're getting hung up on terminology in either respect, it should be a fairly simple matter to ask, "What do you mean by XYZ?" and expect a plainly spoken answer.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

Having some measure of respect for the people we are supposed to be interested in sharing with goes a long way...and that has nothing to do with the subject itself. I agree with Keith, that many may not care at all either way, but others that might be interested in exploring this may see the message, killed by the messenger. We need to ask ourselves: Just how much "signal" are we really delivering

I don't disagree that there are people who will be turned off the whole subject just based on what they've witnessed in how the messengers, evangelists, prosthelytists and otherwise advocates have conducted themselves publicly. We're all adults, responsible for our actions, etc. Choose to participate or not. We can all do our part to reach out to those on the fence, if we want, or just do our thing and have those that want to seek us out do so. But in terms of having a conversation online - use whatever standards you wish and accept that others will do the same.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

I again vote for NAMT as it is. Real discussion about IP/aiki isn't going to happen here anymore.
Related discussion of how it fits into arts will appear here and there; if it is aikido related it will be above, non aikido related it will be in NAMT.
There is simply no need for any change.
Dan

At the basic level, I agree, use the outlets that exist already. I disagree that real discussions won't happen here and I encourage those that want to to participate. But again, I can't make anyone do anything and I won't begrudge anyone their preference either way.

There is a presupposition in the ISTPQ contingent that aiki is missing in everyone's Aikido and that they have the answer.

With over one million practitioners of Aikido worldwide the amount they have had contact with is well below 1/2 of 1%.

They are unwilling to admit and meet with those that do have aiki in thier Aikido because this would not profit them to do so.

I think that the the forum should be renamed to Non-Aikido Non-Traditional Martial Arts because the ISTPQ contingent does not promote traditional martial arts like Tai Chi or Daito Ryu or Aikido.

dps

It's pretty commonly recognized by actual experts in Taiji, Xingyi, you-name-it, that most practitioners only do 'external' copies of the actual style. I.e., it's a given that most people are not doing the "traditional" style. Tohei, to use a handy example, went outside of Aikido to learn some internal-strength skills and brought them back into his Aikido training. Then later Tohei attempted to tell people about the ki skills that a lot of people were missing.

The guy Tohei got a lot of his skills from (Tempu Nakamura) did not do a traditional martial art, either... so what's your point?

Koichi Tohei was born 1920 in Shitaya ward (下谷区), presently Taitō, in Tokyo. As a boy he was sickly and frail, leading his father to recommend Tohei for judo studies. He trained hard and his body prospered, but soon after he began his pre-college studies at Keio University, he developed a case of pleurisy, an inflammation of the lining of the lung cavity which causes pains when breathing. This forced Tohei to take a year off.

Tohei was distressed at the thought of losing his newfound strength of body and his means of training it, so he decided to replace his judo studies with Zen meditation and misogi exercises. As with his judo studies, Tohei entered the training of the mind with fervor and soon excelled despite his serious health issues. After his recovery from pleurisy, of which the doctors could find no trace, Tohei became convinced that it was his efforts in training his mind and cultivating his ki that had helped him to heal and recover. This stimulated his later development of Kiatsu, a system of treating physical illness by pressing with the fingers and extending the ki into the ill persons body[citation needed]. Tohei describes this as "priming the pump" allowing the person to heal themselves.

After recovering from pleurisy he returned to judo, but Tohei he wanted more than just physical training and did not think that judo was the right art for him to practise, although he did continue with studying judo until he started with aikido.

dps

Trust only movement. Life happens at the level of events not of words. Trust movement. --Alfred Adler

There is a presupposition in the ISTPQ contingent that aiki is missing in everyone's Aikido and that they have the answer.

With over one million practitioners of Aikido worldwide the amount they have had contact with is well below 1/2 of 1%.

They are unwilling to admit and meet with those that do have aiki in thier Aikido because this would not profit them to do so.

I think that the the forum should be renamed to Non-Aikido Non-Traditional Martial Arts because the ISTPQ contingent does not promote traditional martial arts like Tai Chi or Daito Ryu or Aikido.

dps

David,

Not sure where you are coming from on this post.

First, no one ever said that no one has aiki in their Aikido - all I ever heard was that most don't have it and those that do have some, don't have it to a high degree like Ueshiba did,

Second, let's talk quality and not quantity here as well as some math permutations. Dan has met and trained with 782 people worldwide so far - mostly senior ranked individuals and teachers that do their own seminars. Collectivity, they have experienced thousands and thousands of people - this represents more that your 1/2 %,

Third, I never heard of anyone being turned away who wanted to sincerely train - actually, it's those type of naysayers who think they may have something in aiki that we all would like to see as long as they are sincere and don't have any personal agendas. As far as your profit statement, I know of no one making money off of any of this stuff.

Fourth, most of the people I know outside of Aikido that are training IS are from Daito Ryu, Yi Chuan, Tai Chi, and some other Chinese and Korean martial arts, and some have used this forum to discuss aspects of their arts other than IS - so I am not sure what you mean by your last paragraph.

They are unwilling to admit and meet with those that do have aiki in thier Aikido because this would not profit them to do so.

Care to give me a list of people in aikido who have aiki?
I don't think you find that it is us are unwillling to meet with them.
How would it not profit us to do so? Do you think there is some sort of competition going on? For what? Do you think I plan on doing this for very long? Has it dawned on you that my end game is to hand it over to...aikido teachers and leave?

Quote:

I think that the the forum should be renamed to Non-Aikido Non-Traditional Martial Arts because the ISTPQ contingent does not promote traditional martial arts like Tai Chi or Daito Ryu or Aikido.
dps

I guess Jun has abandoned the thread to be specific to NAMT and leave it as a sounding board for gripes. Okay, then

David,
This is yet another example of the illogical, and uninformed arguments we get. I have heard more bitching and bellyaching about aikido from aikido-ka then you will hear from me. I keep trying to talk them INTO the potentials in aikido. I am quite sure if I asked them, dozens of teachers would address it.
Aikido has much that is wrong with the way it is practiced and much that is right with it. In most events I have been involved with, people have had reasoned discussion for both the positive and negative aspects about the way Aikido and aiki-weapons are practiced. Most have some eye opening experiences that are beneficial...to.... their aikido practice.

I will close with the one issue you and others like you NEVER address; the teachers and students who keep attending.
You can't address it because you cannot assemble an intelligent discourse for engaging and negating thousands of years of combined experience that is being offered from teachers and students offering an almost 100% positive review of this practice.
,
Instead, I see some people here sum up the attendees, group them and reduce their impact as acolytes, fan boys, brainwashed, and every other ploy to reduce their impact and experienced judgement. Then reduce my efforts as being a con man and snake oil salesman who is "bereting and mocking aikido people" etc..
There is no reasonable discussion, no intelligent recognition of hundreds of teachers and students judgment of the value of this work. Instead we get people who are almost completely uninformed, emoting all over their keyboard.
Dan

I again vote for NAMT as it is. Real discussion about IP/aiki isn't going to happen here anymore.
Related discussion of how it fits into arts will appear here and there; if it is aikido related it will be above, non aikido related it will be in NAMT.
There is simply no need for any change.
Dan

I'd like to see the posts in NAMT appear in the "Active Forum Threads" on the top page - it would make it easier for me to follow things - but I'm just lazy.